Fourth World Eye Blog » Artby – Tiffany Watershttp://cwis.org/FWE
An Online Daily Journal of the Center for World Indigenous StudiesSat, 21 Mar 2015 14:54:02 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6Canada endorses UNDRIP; US stands alonehttp://cwis.org/FWE/2010/11/15/canada-endorses-undrip-us-stands-alone/
http://cwis.org/FWE/2010/11/15/canada-endorses-undrip-us-stands-alone/#commentsMon, 15 Nov 2010 10:00:41 +0000TiffanyWatershttp://cwis.org/FWE/2010/11/15/canada-endorses-undrip-us-stands-alone/On Friday, November 12th, 2010, Canada joined Australia and New Zealand in reversing its decision to officially endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The UNDRIP, recognizing the rights of indigenous people as both individuals and as a collective, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, with Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the US the only four dissenting countries to vote against its adoption. In April 2009, Australia reversed their decision and endorsed the UNDRIP, with New Zealand following suit one year later in 2010.

Within Friday’s statement of support, Canada declared: “In endorsing the Declaration, Canada reaffirms its commitment to build on a positive and productive relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to improve the well-being of Aboriginal Canadians, based on our shared history, respect, and a desire to move forward together.”

Of the four countries, Canada has been one of the most vocal dissenters, taking issue with the Declaration’s inclusion of the rights of Indigenous self-determination, land rights, and the need for ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ before enacting legislation that affects indigenous peoples. Within their statement of support, Canada writes that those concerns are “well known and remain,” but that “we are now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.”

Canada’s historic decision, while long overdue, is an important step in continuing nation-to-nation relations between settler-state and Indigenous governments. With now three of the four dissenting nations reversing their stance on the UNDRIP, the US stands alone in refusing to endorse the Declaration. President Obama, the move is yours.

An article recently surfaced in Indian Country Today entitled “A Sorry Saga,” in which the authorbrings attention to the Native American Apology Resolution signed by President Obama on December 19th, as part of a defense appropriation spending bill. While the Resolution had passed as a stand-alone piece of legislation in the Senate, it was attached to and passed with a defense appropriations spending bill within the House before making its way to President Obama. The final version of the resolution shifted from being an official apology from the US government to an apology “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native peoples by citizens of the United States.” The real crux of the Indian Country Today article revolves around the lack of publicity surrounding the apology and asks the question, “Is an apology that’s not said out loud really an apology?”

Prior to this apology, President Obama has been largely lauded for keeping his prior commitments to Indian Country (convening a tribal leaders summit in November to hear concerns; appointing tribal leaders to IHS and Native American Affairs posts; largely maintaining and even, in some cases, increasing funding to Indian Country for this year’s budget). Ironically, it is this hidden apology that has caused some to backpeddle their vocal support for the Obama Administration. I would argue that many may view this obscure and amalgamous apology as a step backward rather than forward as it provides the perfect metaphor for the US’ longstanding nebulous public policy toward American Indian people. The US, throughout the years, has managed to promote a half in half out relationship with Indian Country in which sovereignty is recognized in pieces rather than in whole (as a long-standing continuation of the Western colonial reductionist vein of thought that brought us the Dawes Act, etc). Thus this apology, passed with no public acknowledgement, coming from the “American people” rather than the US government, and with a caveat to ensure that it cannot be construed to allow legal culpability, reeks of this prior paradigm that many in Indian Country counted would change and were hoping was changing with the election of President Obama.

Revisiting Indian Country Today’s question, I would propose what I believe to be a more pertinent question: Is an apology without subsequent action really an apology? A true apology, publicized or not, must be followed by real demonstrable action that marriages sentiments to words, words to policy, and policy to action. I laud this apology as long as it is a step toward such action. A relevant and pressing issue of substance is the current US stance against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In 2007, the US, along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, were the only countries to vote against the adoption of the UNDRIP. Australia has since overturned their decision in early 2009 and did so only two months after their official governmental apology to the Aboriginal populations. A true test then of the intent of the Native American Apology Resolution will be if the Obama Administration utilizes this apology as a foothold for reversing the current US position opposing the UNDRIP. Such an adoption would truly demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to and respect for Indian Nations and for creating a new paradigm in which true nation to nation relations can begin.